AB2750 requires applicants for housing development projects to submit a defined list of site, design, environmental, and affordability information as a "preliminary application." The bill also lets proponents request a good-faith fee and exaction estimate from the permitting agency, which the agency must deliver within 30 business days; agencies and special districts must provide fee schedules on request.
The measure pairs that packet of information with deadlines and procedural limits: local agencies must publish a checklist or accept a standardized HCD form, applicants must file a complete development application within 180 days of the preliminary application (and cure any identified completeness deficiencies within 90 days) or the preliminary application expires, and submission does not prevent the later listing of tribal cultural resources. For developers, local governments, special districts, and housing funders, AB2750 creates clearer upfront disclosure but imposes new administrative duties and tight timelines that will affect budgeting, staffing, and project sequencing.
At a Glance
What It Does
Specifies the exact information that counts as a preliminary application for housing projects, requires local agencies to provide a nonbinding fee and exaction estimate within 30 business days, mandates checklists or a standard HCD form, and sets deadlines for converting a preliminary application into a full development application or letting it expire.
Who It Affects
Housing developers and project proponents, city and county planning departments, school districts and special districts that levy fees, local publicly owned utilities, HCD (for the standardized form), and tribal and environmental stakeholders monitoring cultural and environmental resources.
Why It Matters
The bill reduces uncertainty at the pre-application stage by standardizing what information must be submitted and by giving early (though nonbinding) cost estimates. That clarity can speed financing and entitlement strategy, but it also shifts administrative work to agencies and could create budgetary and timing mismatches when estimates change or when projects are revised.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB2750 turns the traditional, often informal pre‑application meeting into a formalized preliminary application by listing the specific data an applicant must supply to trigger that status. The bill's inventory includes precise location data (parcel numbers, legal description), existing uses and significant physical alterations, site plans and building elevations with massing and approximate square footage, unit counts and nonresidential square footage using local zoning categories, parking counts, pollutant sources, known special‑status species, and identification of hazards such as wildfire zones, wetlands, hazardous waste sites, floodplains, fault zones, and streambed areas.
It also requires disclosure of historic or cultural resources, the number and affordability levels of below‑market units, any bonus units and incentives requested, demolition impacts on existing units, public easements, and—where the project lies in the coastal zone—coastal-specific features like ESHA or tsunami run‑up zones.
Beyond the checklist, the bill builds early cost transparency into the process. A proponent may request a "fee and exaction estimate" as part of the preliminary application; the local agency must provide that estimate within 30 business days.
If fees are imposed by other agencies or districts, the proponent must request their schedules directly and those agencies must respond without delay. The statute defines "fee" and "exaction" in line with existing mitigation fee law, excludes CEQA compliance charges and certain utility service costs from that definition, and expressly makes any estimate informational and nonbinding.To simplify submittals, each local agency must compile a checklist and application form covering the required items; if a local agency does not produce its own, the Department of Housing and Community Development must adopt a standardized form that applicants may use.
Checklists and forms cannot demand anything beyond the list in the statute. AB2750 also limits when a preliminary application remains effective: if the project changes by 20 percent or more in unit count or square footage (outside of increases caused by density bonuses or similar incentives), the applicant must resubmit an updated preliminary package.
Finally, the bill imposes deadlines to prevent indefinite preliminary status: the applicant must file a complete development application within 180 calendar days after the preliminary application, and must cure any identified completeness deficiencies within 90 days of written notice or the preliminary application expires. The statute clarifies that submitting a preliminary application does not block the later listing of tribal cultural resources, nor will such a later listing count as a change to ordinances or standards for purposes of certain housing law provisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The preliminary application must include a detailed site package: parcel numbers and legal description, site plan and elevations, unit and square‑foot counts by local zoning categories, parking counts, pollutant sources, and identification of special environmental or hazard features.
A proponent may request a fee and exaction estimate; the local agency must provide that good‑faith, nonbinding estimate within 30 business days of the preliminary application.
For fees imposed by other agencies (school districts, special districts, or local publicly owned utilities), the proponent must request those fee schedules directly and the imposing agency must provide them without delay.
If the project’s unit count or building square footage changes by 20% or more (excluding increases from density bonuses/incentives), the applicant must resubmit the preliminary application to reflect the revision.
The applicant must submit a complete development application within 180 calendar days of the preliminary application and must supply any specifically identified information within 90 days of a written completeness notice or the preliminary application expires.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Required contents of a preliminary application
This provision lists the specific documents and data that constitute a preliminary application for a housing development project. It is granular: location and parcel identifiers; existing uses and planned physical alterations; site plans with elevations and massing; unit counts and nonresidential square footage mapped to local zoning categories; parking counts; point sources of pollution; species of concern; and a set of environmental and hazard flags (fire severity zones, wetlands, hazardous waste sites, flood and fault zones, streambed areas). It also requires disclosure of historic or cultural resources, the count and affordability levels of below‑market units, bonus units and requested incentives, demolition impacts on existing housing, public easements, and coastal‑zone specifics where applicable. Practically, this forces applicants to compile a near‑complete entitlement packet up front, which can improve early review but raises the bar for initial submittals.
Fee and exaction estimates; definitions and scope
Subdivision (b) creates the mechanism for an early fee and exaction estimate. A proponent can request a good‑faith estimate with the preliminary application; the local agency must provide it within 30 business days. The subsection defines "fee" and "exaction" by reference to the Mitigation Fee Act and carves out two exclusions—utility service costs from local publicly owned utilities and CEQA compliance charges—so those items are not part of the mandated estimate. The statute makes the estimate informational and nonbinding and instructs agencies that fee schedules imposed by other entities must be provided upon request. The practical effect is greater early cost transparency, but because estimates are not binding the schedule remains subject to change as permitting moves forward.
Local checklists and a standardized HCD form
This section requires each local agency to compile a checklist and application form that maps to subdivision (a). If a local agency fails to produce its own form, HCD must adopt a standardized form applicants may use; the bill specifically exempts that HCD action from the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) rulemaking process. Importantly, a checklist or form cannot demand information beyond the statutory list. The upshot: local variation remains possible, but HCD’s fallback form ensures a statewide minimum and aims to reduce negotiation about what constitutes a sufficient preliminary submittal.
Material revisions trigger resubmission (20% threshold)
If, after a preliminary application is filed, the project’s unit count or square footage changes by 20% or more (excluding increases attributable to density bonuses or similar incentives), the applicant must resubmit the preliminary information to reflect the revision. The bill defines square footage by reference to Title 24 (California Building Standards Code) building area. This rule limits the usefulness of a preliminary application as a one‑time snapshot and requires updated disclosure when a project undergoes a substantial redesign or rezoning-driven expansion.
Time limits for filing a full application and tribal cultural resource listing
Subdivision (e) imposes procedural deadlines: the applicant must submit a complete development application within 180 calendar days after the preliminary application, and must provide any specifically identified completeness items within 90 days of receiving a written notice or the preliminary application expires. Subdivision (f) clarifies that submitting a preliminary application does not prevent the listing of tribal cultural resources after that date, and that such later listing will not be treated as a change to local ordinances or standards for certain housing‑law purposes. These provisions balance streamlining with the persistence of environmental and cultural review risks that can arise later in the process.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Housing developers and project proponents — gain a clear, statutory list of what information constitutes a preliminary application and an early, consolidated view of likely fees, which helps budgeting, entitlement strategy, and lender due diligence.
- Lenders, equity partners, and other project financers — receive improved early cost visibility and a more predictable pre‑application packet to underwrite feasibility, even though estimates are nonbinding.
- Department of Housing and Community Development — gains authority to produce a standardized application form that can reduce local variation and speed statewide data collection and compliance.
- Affordable housing projects and advocates — must disclose below‑market unit counts and affordability levels early, which can make tradeoffs and subsidy needs apparent sooner in the process.
- Community organizations and environmental monitors — get consistent project data earlier, improving their ability to review potential impacts and organize responses before formal entitlements proceed.
Who Bears the Cost
- City and county planning departments — must assemble checklists, respond to fee/exaction estimate requests within 30 business days, and manage additional administrative load from detailed preliminary submittals and potential resubmissions.
- Special districts, school districts, and local publicly owned utilities — must respond to fee schedule requests "without delay," adding administrative tasks and potential coordination burdens across agencies not previously integrated into local permitting timelines.
- Project proponents — face a higher upfront documentation standard and risk preliminary application expiration if they do not convert to a full application within 180 days or timely cure deficiencies, which can disrupt project sequencing and financing.
- HCD — required to adopt a standardized form without APA rulemaking, which creates an implementation responsibility that will demand staff time and choices about form content and digital availability.
- Local governments and applicants — bear legal and budgetary risk from nonbinding estimates that later prove inaccurate, potentially leading to cost overruns, renegotiated deals, or litigation over perceived misinformation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the need for developer certainty, efficiency, and early cost visibility against local governments’ and other agencies’ capacity to provide accurate, timely information and against the obligation to protect environmental and tribal cultural resources; it streamlines pre‑application disclosure while preserving later mechanisms that can still delay or alter projects, so parties must choose between speed and procedural comprehensiveness with no perfect compromise.
AB2750 improves upfront transparency but raises implementation questions. The bill requires a rapid turnaround for fee and exaction estimates (30 business days) and obliges other agencies to provide fee schedules "without delay," yet it includes no enforcement mechanism, penalty, or explicit remedy if those timelines are missed.
That creates practical uncertainty: agencies may struggle to meet the deadline absent dedicated staffing, and applicants confronted with late or incomplete information will have limited statutory recourse. The estimate’s express nonbinding nature reduces legal exposure for agencies but shifts the financial risk to developers and financiers who will need contingency planning.
The 20 percent revision trigger and the 180/90‑day timing framework produce additional tradeoffs. Measuring a 20 percent change in units or building area may be straightforward on paper but can be contentious in practice when design adjustments, phased projects, or interpretations of "building area" under Title 24 are involved.
The exclusion for density bonuses narrows one source of ambiguity but leaves others. The relatively short cure period (90 days) and the expiration consequence could force rushed resubmissions or cause applicants to lose the procedural benefits of a preliminary application.
Finally, HCD’s authority to adopt a standardized form without APA review is a double‑edged sword: it speeds the creation of a fallback form but reduces stakeholder input and oversight, which could make the form less attuned to local contexts and create pushback from jurisdictions used to tailoring pre‑application requirements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.